Constructive Nonconformist ruminates that Coda’s paradigm of working on one local copy to one live site may be good for some, but not for everyone:
When I build a website it’s generally for a client. In addition to development and production, I need a third server: a ‘user acceptance testing’ web server. Sometimes I need a fourth server for prototyping. (Of course I don’t need separate physical servers. Prototyping, development, and testing could be different directories and/or ports on one server.)
This is a fair complaint, but I think Panic is right to keep Coda streamlined in how sites are managed. For coders who built sites of this magnitude, Coda would become so bloated to fulfill every need it would collapse under its own weight. I think the audience of web authors who work more-or-less directly on live sites is great enough to sustain the app.
